However, I have to say it's funny to watch Republicans grasp for this, pretending it's the Dem's version of Enron. The problem is that Global Crossing gave more money to Republican politicians than Dems. Safire lists money given to Dems, like the Clinton library, but there's even more that he didn't list that was given to Repubs.

Even Enron gave money to both parties - just a whole lot more to Repubs, especially Bush.

Also, the Bush admin. made policy that favored Enron after receiving umpteen millions of dollars from them (I could post my list again, but I'm sure you're sick of it). What did politicians do for GC? Bet you can't come up with that list for GC.

Even so, let's say we accept Safire's faulty premise, that they're scandals of the same magnitude. How about this - everyone involved in either scandal should resign.

That would mean a bunch of Senators and House representatives (many more Repubs), the chairs of both the DNC and RNC, and... just about the entire Bush administration. Maybe Colin Powell wasn't involved with Enron? So he would be president. There are probably some assistants to the assistant of some cabinet officer in the Bush admin. that have no links to Enron. They could move up to vice president and sec. of state, etc.

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
Also, the Bush admin. made policy that favored Enron after receiving umpteen millions of dollars from them...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not buying it but it seems to comfort you to believe this so, yeah, whatever. So did the Clinton admin. Robert Rubin seems to have been so hardwired into Enron that Ken Lay offered him a seat on their board. None of this had anything to do with Enron going belly up. Look, I don't like the way Enron did business even if they hadn't cooked their books. They are poster boys for crony capitalism. But the attempt to tar Bush with the apparent criminality that went on at Enron is just desperate. And no, Global Crossing isn't a "Democratic Enron" anymore than is Enron itself a Republican scandal.

[quote]When everyone from Congress to the SEC to the FBI is done trying to turn Global Crossing into Enron, maybe someone will ask the $100,000 question: How did a well-funded company building something everyone wanted - a globe-straddling, fiber-optic infrastructure for the broadband age - suddenly find itself in the lurch?

We're not saying that inventive accounting could not have played a role in its failure. But dozens of other broadband providers are also in bankruptcy, including Excite@Home. The falling share prices of Global Crossing's competitors - Level 3, Qwest and WorldCom among them - suggest that factors beyond errant bookkeeping are a problem. Even AOL's stock took a big hit Wednesday after a Lehman analyst put out a report saying, among other things, the company was running into obstacles with its broadband rollout.

We've pointed out before that the excruciatingly slow deployment of broadband is the bane of Nasdaq's existence. This is one of the unintended consequences of the six-year-old Telecommunications Act that governs the industry and the pre-Internet thinking that undergirds it. Turning Global Crossing Chairman Gary Winnick into Ken Lay won't help matters.

At the heart of the broadband dilemma is something called the "last mile" of service. These are the wires that connect ordinary homes to broadband. Companies such as Global Crossing have tied the world together with high-speed networks, but because this "last mile" remains largely in the control of the Baby Bell phone companies and their cable-TV rivals, most Americans remain unconnected.

We have the Telecom Act's rigid classifications - phone company, cable company, broadcaster, etc. - to thank for this. In a day when the market is pushing for a single company to provide all these services, the Telecom Act saddles each arbitrary category with its own unique set of regulations. Telecom companies, for example, have to wonder how they will be classified if they offer a new service. Three different district courts already have rendered three different decisions on the classification of cable modem services.

Add to this the huge pricing disincentives to invest in broadband upgrades. If Verizon wants to offer DSL connections to the Web, it must first upgrade the wires in its network. Doing so is both risky and expensive. Then, after the upgrades are completed, the Telecom Act mandates that a regional Bell must lease the use of its network to rival broadband service providers - at a price determined by the FCC and state public utility commissions. Is it any wonder that the Baby Bells are foot-dragging on this last mile?

"Global Crossing built the highway," says Jeffrey Eisenach of the Progress & Freedom Foundation. "But the FCC destroyed the incentives for the Bells to build the on-ramps."

Reps. Billy Tauzin (R., La.) and John Dingell (D., Mich.) agree. They've been pushing legislation to lift the Telecom Act's sharing requirements and clear away the old-style telephony regulations hampering new Internet technologies. But their bill is hung up thanks to opposition from AT&T and other cable operators.

Companies like Global Crossing that dumped billions into broadband infrastructure were, of course, gambling that sufficient demand would materialize to fill their pipes. For that matter, so were their shareholders - a fact too easily lost from sight now. Until last year, traffic was doubling every few months and backbone providers were enjoying stratospheric profit margins.

Why this came to a sudden halt is not just a matter of overbuilding. Many homes already wired for broadband have chosen not to subscribe. Why is anyone's guess. Perhaps the price is too high. Perhaps, with Napster on the ropes, Hollywood is not doing its part to speed the cornucopia of digital entertainment options that was expected to excite consumer appetites.

What we do know is that Global Crossing and its competitors have found themselves with lots of debt and little financing, thanks to the rapid deceleration in demand for data carriage. Theirs was a risky bet to begin with, but Washington's hobbling of last-mile regulation was and remains a big reason why it didn't pan out.<hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>I'm not buying it but it seems to comfort you to believe this so, yeah, whatever.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, when I feel downtrodden, sad, or blue, I just think of Bush and Enron, and I feel better.

But no, you're right, Bush's policies didn't have anything to do with them going bankrupt. But they may have done just the opposite - prolonged Enron's "success."

Here's an analysis from John Dean, who knows a little about Republican scandals.
[quote]In terms of the unraveling of previous Washington scandals, Enron's collapse is now parallel to men from Nixon's reelection committee getting arrested in the Watergate offices of the Democratic National Committee with bugging equipment. Or the initial discovery of the secret sales of arms to Iran, in direct violation of the laws, to give the profits to Nicaraguan right-wing "contra" guerrillas for purchasing arms for use against the leftist Sandinista government.

These are the discoveries that commenced the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals, which took time to unravel. Similarly, Enron's bankruptcy is only the initial public revelation of this scandal. Much more remains to be unraveled, problems that remain lurking just below the surface.

The Enron Political Scandal That Is Yet To Come

It is not Enron's failure, but rather its meteoric rise - a growth made possible by purchasing politicians and political influence - that is the potentially more serious scandal. This acquired political clout was, in effect, another off-balance-sheet item for Enron: the asset of friends in high places who facilitated Enron's rise.
...
Waxman states that Enron "managed to become one of the most influential voices in Washington and a significant presence for both parties. It was able to persuade the federal government to adopt policies that resulted in less oversight and contributed to Enron's demise."

The White House assisted Enron in its negotiations with the government of India regarding the sale of a $2.9 billion power plant. Indeed, Vice President Cheney personally intervened.

The Alternative Minimum Tax repeal was recommended. This was a tax change Enron lobbied for, because it would reap a huge benefit - receiving a $254 million windfall, after paying no taxes.

The President made appointments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of persons specifically requested by Enron.

The Bush Administration reversed the Clinton Administration's crackdown on offshore tax havens. As a result, Enron was able to shield the transactions of more than 800 offshore subsidiaries, and did not pay taxes on their income.<hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020215.html" target="_blank">Here is the link to Dean's full article.</a>

I'm convinced that the whole Enron thing is a media creation, feeding the Democrat machine at this point. Not that I really know anything about corporate finance/accounting or that kind of stuff. Sure, there was some criminal wrongdoing, and some folks are going to Club Fed over it. But is it as much as we're led to believe? Nah. ANY failure in the energy industry would have been just as politically attractive to the Dems.

Truth is, Enron is one of many, and ALL politicians have blood on their hands over this kind of stuff. The fact that Enron has turned into a dog & pony show just illustrates how thoroughly the media is controlled by Leftists. Corporate leftists, maybe, but leftists nonetheless. By saying "leftist" I'm actually crediting them with some type of underlying principles and values, which I HOPE isn't false attribution.